About your Search

20121112
20121120
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
this on the eve of an election. again, i'm obviously not positing some huge conspiracy. in our environment, in our hyperpartisan environment, most people in a situation like this seeing any possibility for political advantage would have raced to expose something like this, right? general petraeus was confronted about this two weeks ago, right? two weeks before the election. chose -- ultimately decided to resign but didn't decide to resign at that moment. was there part of the reason he did not decide to resign immediately upon being confronted on this, he knew it would be embarrassing for the administration on the eve of an election? that's a reasonable inference. there's so much we don't know because so many people individually have not spoken publicly about the chain of events and their motivations in terms of keeping quiet at a moment of maximum political volatility. >> just to clarify because i've raised a lot of questions here, my biggest concern isn't what happened at the end. i understand there are a lot of conservatives that are going to be thinking that this was -- >> cover-up. >> benghaz
-- there might be a t.a.r.p. like environment where we do go over the cliff, the cliff, whatever that means, exactly, but we don't hit the first set of deadlines. something doesn't pass the first time, but then eventually some of the members of both sides are brought to heal by the prospect of -- >> the real -- not just the pending doom but doom actually present in their laps for a second. that seems like a possible scenario to me. i do think there still is, despite all sharp rhetoric, i still think on the republican side, which is so critical, this notion of the other thing you heard throughout all of the commentary for the last week and over the weekend is that the implications of the election still are -- is sinking in. republicans still -- you see with this continued criticism of romney's comments and so on. that's still setting? >> all right. you mentioned benghazi. let's go to the developments there in the on going controversy over the administration's response to the attack on the u.s. consulate in bengha benghazi. members of congress are now vowing to find out why the cia's conclusi
the way we govern our country. it is a good, therapeutic way to look in a nonhostile environment as to where we need to go with the country. >> john: the fact it is a nonhostile environment means it won't be covered on most cable news outlets. i'm looking over the roster of speakers. of course you're there as well as james carvel and mary madeline. i guess their merge is a model for this kind of event. you have trent lott and ted strickland, jonathan capehart and another married couple, avalon and hoover. it seems like a really, really inspiring roster of people. so i guess let me ask you why did things turn out the way they did last week on election day? >> you know, first of all, it was close but i think that -- you know, most of the pundits got it right. that is i think the people sense that the economy was getting better while slowly things were kind of turning in the right direction. and i think they were willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt under those circumstances. i also think that the
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)